Indian Legal History Essay Example

British government. Interestingly, while its employees were becoming wealthier, the company itself was experiencing financial difficulties. Shareholders voted for increased dividends starting in 1767, but the company had to pay an annual tribute of four lakh pounds to the British exchequer in order to retain its territorial gains and revenues.

Ilbert claims that the state's share of the "Indian spoil" was a significant factor in the situation, thus forcing the British government to investigate the company before granting them a loan. To carry out this investigation, both a select committee and a secret committee were appointed by the House of Commons. Through their respective reports, these committees exposed flaws and deficiencies within the existing structure, leading to the realization that parliament's authority needed to override the company's independence. Consequently, parliament enacted the regulating Act in 1773 to address these issues. The Act brought partial control of the company under the British government and parliament by making changes to its constitution. Additionally, it restructured Calcutta's government and established a Supreme Court there.

The passing of this Act marked the shift from the era of royal charters to the era of parliamentary enactments. From then on, parliament would enact a series of Acts every twenty years to renew the company's charter. Each renewal involved a thorough investigation and increased control by the crown and parliament over the company.

The Establishment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta:

A significant change brought about by the Regulating Act, 1773, was the issuance of a charter on March 26, 1774, by King George III. This charter established the Supreme Court of Judicature at Calcutta, replacing the previous judicial system under the 1753 charter. The new

court was necessary to ensure proper administration of justice in accordance with the circumstances and requirements of the company's presidency at Fort William in Bengal.

Therefore, the Act aimed to establish a more efficient and effective Judicial Tribunal, known as the Supreme Court. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court was composed of a Chief Justice and Three Puisne Judges. The appointment of judges was carried out by the British King, and individuals who had been practicing as barristers for at least five years were eligible for appointment. The judges' tenure was dependent on the crown's discretion. Sir Elijah Impey was chosen as the inaugural Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Judges of the Supreme Court, who also had to be justices of peace, were given the same jurisdiction and authority as the Judges of the Court of King’s Bench in England under common law. Consequently, the Judges of the Supreme Court held the same status as the Judges of the Kings Bench in England.

The Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court, as outlined in a justified heading, included the power to hear civil cases involving:
1. The Company; the Corporation of Calcutta.
2. His majesty’s subjects residing or having any debt or property in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa; executors and Administrators of such subjects.
3. Any person employed by, or being directly or indirectly in the services of the company, the corporation, or 4.

Additionally, any of His Majesty’s Subjects and any inhabitant of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa who entered into a written agreement with any of His Majesty’s subjects, agreeing that in case of dispute, the matter would be determined by the Supreme Court and the cause of action exceeds

Five Hundred rupees. Furthermore, the court functioned as a court of record and had authority over Civil, Criminal, Admiralty, and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It could establish rules of practice and process and perform all necessary functions for the administration of Justice (section 13).The Supreme Court, acting as a criminal court, had the authority to carry out the functions of a court of Oyer and Terminer and Goal Delivery in Calcutta and the surrounding factories. It had the power to summon a Grand Jury, made up of residents of Calcutta, to present crimes and offenses known to them. For criminal cases, a jury consisting of British subjects residing in Calcutta would be used. If deemed necessary, the Supreme Court could temporarily postpone or suspend the execution of a death sentence if the judges believed there was a reason for mercy, until the crown's decision was made. In these instances, the court would send the case record and reasons for recommending mercy to the crown. In its role as an ecclesiastical court, the Supreme Court was authorized to apply ecclesiastical law from the diocese of London on British subjects residing in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa.

The Supreme Court had the power to grant probate of Wills for British Subjects who died in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. It also had the authority to issue Letters of administration for the goods, chattels, and other effects of British Subjects who died without a designated executor, in accordance with the rules of England. The Supreme Court served as the Admiralty Court for Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, handling cases and trials in the same manner as the Admiralty Court in England. It had jurisdiction

over all "civil and maritime causes" and "maritime crimes" committed at sea, presided over by a petty Jury consisting of British Subjects residing in Calcutta. The maritime jurisdiction extended to His Majesty's Subjects living in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, as well as individuals directly or indirectly working for the company or any of His Majesty's subjects.

The establishment of the Supreme Court in Calcutta was aimed at supervising and regulating the court of Request, justices of the peace, and court of quarter sessions. The purpose was to ensure that these courts operated in compliance with the law and justice. Similar to how the courts of King’s Bench controlled inferior courts and magistrates in England, the Supreme Court had the power to issue prerogative writs such as mandamus, certiorari, procedendo, or error.
Under specific conditions, appeals from the Supreme Court to the King-in-council were permitted. In civil cases, an appeal could be made to the king-in-council if the disputed subject matter exceeded one thousand pagodas and if the petition requesting permission was submitted within six months after judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court. Concerning criminal cases, it was entirely up to discretion of the Supreme Court whether a permission for appeal to be made before king-in-council would be granted or denied.

The king-in-council had the authority to accept or reject appeals from the Supreme Court's decisions and could impose conditions as they deemed appropriate. Additionally, the court had the power to authorize advocates and attorneys to represent plaintiffs in court. Only those approved by the court were permitted to act on behalf of litigants. The Governor General, Members of his Council, and Judges of the Supreme Court

enjoyed immunity from imprisonment except in cases involving treason or felony. The Regulating Act of 1773 did not specify which laws were to be enforced by the Supreme Court nor did it include any provisions limiting its jurisdiction over Indians. The appointed Judges possessed knowledge of English legal systems and traditions but lacked familiarity with Indian legal codes, customs, and traditions, displaying no interest in acquainting themselves with them.

Thus, the administration of Justice in Bengal was conducted by applying the English Law and procedure. According to Cowell, this Tribunal possessed extraordinary powers that were ill-suited for the social and political circumstances of Bengal. Not only did it have jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters, which were entirely unfamiliar and displeasing to the Indian people, but it also had the ability to switch from one day presiding over cases under common law and delivering judgments, to the next day preventing the same litigant from carrying out their sentence while sitting on its equity side. One notable achievement of this court was executing Raja Nandkumar for an offense committed long before its establishment, in compliance with an English law that could never be enforced in India.

The disaffection between the government and the Supreme Court arose in the Calcutta region for three main reasons. Firstly, the court had the power to punish corrupt or oppressive acts carried out by revenue officers in their official capacity during the collection of revenue. Additionally, the court issued Habeas Corpus writs to free those who were detained for non-payment of revenue. Secondly, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over illegal acts committed by judicial officers of the Company in their official capacity. Finally,

the court issued writs of Capias to compel native defendants residing in Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa to appear before the court. Prior to the conflict between the Supreme Court and the council becoming public, Warren Hastings sympathized with and supported the court. Despite referring to it as a hindrance to the government due to some reservations, Hastings was pleased with the appointment of Sir Elijah Impey as its Chief Justice.

Hastings described him as a man who possessed "sense and moderation." At first, Warren Hastings believed that the Supreme Court had a flaw in its authority, as it was not universal. His solution was to either grant the Supreme Court full authority or limit its jurisdiction to Calcutta, the commercial factories, and British subjects outside of them. Hastings stated that if the court operated under any other circumstances, its jurisdiction would be bypassed or it would become a burden to the government.

Warren Hastings, upon regaining leadership of the government, became vehemently hostile towards the Supreme Court and took actions to confine its operations within Calcutta. The conflict between the Supreme Council and the Supreme Court is evident in various cases, particularly the significant case of Raja Nandkumar. This case uniquely highlights the conflict between Warren Hastings and the council majority, as well as between the Supreme Court and the council majority.

Situation In The Background Of The Trial:

The trial revolves around two cases: the Case of Queen of Burdwan and the Case of Munni Begum.
In the Case of Queen of Burdwan, she accused Hastings of accepting an unauthorized bribe of sixteen thousand rupees to appoint her minor son Diwan after her husband's death. During the council

hearing, Hastings refused to listen to any allegations against himself and abruptly left the meeting, leading to its adjournment.
On the other hand, in the Case of Munni Begum, she was appointed as the guardian of the Nawab. However, in 1775, it was discovered by the council of Murshidabad that she had spent a substantial amount totaling 9,67,693 rupees. As a result, Begum was requested to provide an account detailing her expenses.

In her account statement, she stated that she had gifted one lakh fifty thousand rupees to Governor General Warren Hastings. The allegation was ultimately proven true as Hastings stated that the acceptance of such gifts was not prohibited by Parliament at that time. The reason behind Nandkumar's trial was due to Hastings having many enemies.

Nandkumar, a powerful Brahman from Bengal, held a strong dislike for Warren Hastings and vice versa. Nandkumar was deeply humiliated by the outcome of Mohammad Raza Khan's prosecution, in which he played an unrewarded role. At present, the subject of Calcutta discussion centered around Governor General's Prosecution by new councilors. During this time, Hastings prohibited Nandkumar and favored Mohan Prasad, who happened to be Nandkumar's archenemy. Seeking support, Nandkumar joined forces with Fawke, an unemployed Englishman.

Hastings was accused of accepting bribes totaling Rs. 4,04,105 from Middleton for appointing Gurudas as Diwan and Rs. 2,50,000 from Munni Begum for appointing her as the guardian of infant Nawab, Mubarak-ud-din Daulah. Hastings admitted receiving a sum of one lakh and a half from Munni Begum during his visit to her at Murshidabad, which was considered by later Sir James Stephen as entertainment money.

In response, Hastings stood up from his chair

and declared that any meetings without him present were illegal. He refused to be treated as if he were on trial before his own council. Despite this, the majority of the council voted for Clavering to take the chair and called in Nandkumar to proceed with the charges. This deeply hurt Hastings, who ultimately decided to use his authority to prosecute the man who accused him. The facts of Nandkumar's case are as follows: a few days later, Nandkumar, along with Joseph Fawke, Francis Fawke, and Radhacharan, were charged and arrested for conspiracy at the urging of Governor General Warren Hastings and Barwell, a council member.

Warren Hastings sought revenge and orchestrated another forgery case against Nandkumar, this time initiated by Mohan Prasad. In July 1775, the judgement for the conspiracy case was delivered by the Supreme Court. While Fawke was fined, the decision regarding Nandkumar was postponed due to the ongoing case. The council protested and expressed their opposition, however, Nandkumar was ultimately tried by twelve British jurymen and found guilty of forgery.

The Supreme Court, under an Act passed by the British Parliament in 1728, sentenced Warren Hastings to death. On August 5th, 1775, the death sentence was carried out through hanging. This execution fulfilled Hastings' desire with the help of his friend Sir Elijah Impey, who was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at the time. The trial of Nandkumar has always raised suspicions and has been criticized by historians like Macaulay and Mill, who accused Chief Justice Impey of committing a judicial murder.

It has been suggested that Nandkumar was a victim of Warren Hastings Wrath and Nandkumar was tried ostensibly for forgery

but in reality for his daring to bring corruption charges against the Governor General Warren Hastings. It is to mention here that Chief Justice Impey was a good friend of Warren Hastings. It therefore becomes clear that Chief Justice Impey was rightly accused of having conspired with Warren Hastings to put Nandkumar to death and his execution was a result of this conspiracy. This proposition was challenged on the ground that Nandkumar was not only tried by Chief Justice Impey but by the other judges of Supreme Court also and the whole court with the help of jury held Nandkumar guilty of the crime of forgery. James Fitzjames Stephen stands foremost among the Historians who have justified the trial on the basis that the trial was held by four judges and twelve Jurymen, all of whom could not have been in conspiracy against Nandkumar.

According to Stephen, the connections between Hastings, Chief Justice Impey, and the prosecution of Nandkumar were normal. However, Beveridge argued that the trial was unfair and provided several grounds to support his claim. First, it was unclear if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over Nandkumar, who was not a resident of Calcutta. Additionally, the case was initiated based on a complaint from Mohan Prasad, another native, suggesting that Warren Hastings prosecuted Nandkumar through a Native.

The Judges took an unusual approach by personally questioning the defense witnesses, which had a severe impact on the defense's case. The Indian witnesses were not familiar with English law and procedures, leading to confusion among them. According to Beveridge, the Judges, Jury, and Council were all foreigners who were unfamiliar with the language spoken by the witnesses.

Nandkumar himself was also unfamiliar with the language of the court. Additionally, the interpreter who assisted during the trial was not proficient in Bengali. Two of Nandkumar's witnesses were native speakers who had a limited understanding of English, making it difficult for them to comprehend the questions posed by the Judges.

Thereby the defense was weakened as two of the Judges of the Supreme Court were also committing Magistrates. This fact clearly violated Natural Justice and must have affected the Justice. Beveridge points out that Judges Hyde and Le Maistre were inclined to be subservient to Chief Justice Impey because he had helped in securing their appointment to the Jury, which consisted of obscure men. After convicting Nandkumar, an application for leave to appeal to the King-in-council was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Charter of 1774 authorized the court to reprieve and suspend execution of a Capital Sentence and recommend the case for mercy to His Majesty.

Despite the fact that this case deserved mercy, the Supreme Court did not enforce this provision. The denial of permission for Nandkumar to appeal before the King-in Council was a clear disregard for justice. The Supreme Court should have utilized this jurisdiction to demonstrate its impartiality in accordance with the law. Nandkumar was accused of committing an offense in 1770, long before the establishment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, he was tried under an ex-post facto law, and the prosecution was based on charters. The Act of 1728, which led to Nandkumar's conviction, had never been officially proclaimed in Calcutta, so the public could not have been expected to be aware of it. This Act was passed

by the British Parliament after considering the conditions of their own country.

Contrary to the intention, the British India Act of 1728 was not meant to be applied to India, which formed the basis for Nandkumar's condemnation. Moreover, the accused crime did not constitute a capital offense under either Muslim or Hindu Law.